Sherman Sladden v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920100513

Case: 09-60617

Document: 00511109997

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/13/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
No. 09-60617 Summary Calendar May 13, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

SHERMAN QUINTIN SLADDEN, also known as Sherman Q. Sladden, Petitioner v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A043 581 798

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Sherman Quintin Sladden, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) final order of deportation and determination that Sladden was ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) because he had committed an aggravated felony. Sladden contends that his New York State conviction for attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance should not be treated as an aggravated felony under
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 09-60617

Document: 00511109997 Page: 2 No. 09-60617

Date Filed: 05/13/2010

federal law. He also asserts that his due process rights were violated because the IJ issued a written decision the day after his hearing that was contrary to the decision that the IJ stated orally at the hearing. Sufficient evidence was submitted that Sladden's state conviction was for attempted possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell it. The IJ correctly determined that this conviction constituted an aggravated felony for immigration law purposes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U); Jacob v. Holder, 335 F. App'x 370 (5th Cir. 2009); Husband v. Mukasey, 286 F. App'x 130, 133 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding "[a]n attempt is the equivalent of the underlying offense for purposes of the aggravated felony determination"). Therefore, we lack

jurisdiction to review the final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Sladden has not shown any prejudice from the alleged violation of his due process rights. See Bolvito v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 428, 438 (5th Cir. 2008). The petition for review is DENIED.

2